Monthly Archives: November 2016

An employee of a registry office once told me of a tragicomic story she had encountered in her work.

One day an old man and woman in their seventies came into the office supporting one another by the arm. They had come for a divorce. Perplexed, the registrar asked them why they had not come earlier when the greater parts of their lives would still have lain before them, and surely, having come this far, could they not spend the rest of their days together, to which they replied:

“We realised almost straight away that we weren’t meant for each other but then the children arrived and we had to make sure they could stand on their own two feet.”

“And after that?”

“Then the grandchildren arrived and we had to help them stand on their own two feet. Now though, we are free!“

In decision-making processes related to the upbringing of children, you can ask yourself one simple question: “Do the child’s actions inhibit Gene Preservation in another or restrict another person’s Freedom of Choice?”

If the answer to this question is yes, then you can safely impose an absolute ban on the child’s actions. If the answer is no, there is no need to place any restrictions on the child at all. They must simply be helped to understand the situation and then make their own decisions.

Here are some practical examples of the classical instructions we give to children:

“Share your toys”. No child is obliged to share their toys with anyone else. The child should decide for themselves who they wish to share their toys with based on how they get on with the other children around them. If a child does not want to share then he or she won’t share with these children either. Beyond that, it is preferable to let the child make their own decision. Naturally, a child’s parents can help clarify the situation but the decision must remain the child’s prerogative.

“Don’t tease or kill animals”. There must be an absolute ban placed on this kind of behaviour because it undermines the realisation of Gene Preservation in animals. The ban does not apply to the cases where a child needs to preserve his/her own gene, e.g. eating meat or killing an animal which attacks a child.

“Don’t fight or hit other children”. It all depends on the situation. If a child beats another motivated solely by aggression then this behaviour must be stopped totally because it contradicts Gene Preservation (and/or Freedom of Choice) in the case of the other child. A child has the right to hit another when provoked in defence of individual Gene Preservation (and/or Freedom of Choice).

“Be obedient”. No child is obliged to be obedient to their parents in everything. According to rules of communal living, the child and parents need to establish cooperative relationships so that the child understands what kind of behaviour is totally prohibited and why (it is the parents’ task to explain the reason for a boundary, preferably by applying the principles of The Last Faith). Parents may advise their child to act one way or another, but should never force them to act in a certain way.

“Be tidy and diligent”. It all depends on the situation. For example, in their own rooms children should be allowed to arrange their toys and belongings however they like. In communal rooms, in accordance with the basic rules of communal living, the child should take into account the wishes (freedoms of choice) of his or her parents, brothers and sisters.

“Don’t be indifferent”. A child must choose for themselves whether a particular situation causes them concern or not. No child is obliged not to be indifferent.

“Respect the elders”. No child is obliged to respect the elders simply because they happen to be greater in years. Respect must result from a child’s Freedom of Choice.

“Love your parents”. A child is in no way obliged to love their parents. This is entirely a matter of Freedom of Choice. One may simply hope that during the early years of life that a child spends living together with its parents, close affectionate relationships will be formed that will last throughout the child’s life.

It should be noted that the parents mostly have no Freedom of Choice about whether they love their children or not because parental love has its foundation in Gene Preservation. This explains why some parents spend their entire lives loving their unloving children.

This question is inspired by the almost million-strong anti-Maduro march that took place yesterday in Venezuela. Why is it that the population who put up with and even welcomed N. Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chavez, can no longer tolerate his heir?

Let’s begin at the very beginning. In ancient times when man still knew nothing, or almost nothing of Freedom of Choice, this question would never have arisen. There was no doubt at all that physical Gene Preservation among human beings, as well as all living matter, was the ultimate priority. At that time, the only Freedom of Choice that existed for the individual was the dream of becoming the wise Chief of the tribe, who would understand that the preservation of his personal genes depended directly on the preservation of the genes of the other tribe members. It is true that such leaders did exist, albeit rarely and their grateful tribesmen would compose songs and legends in their honour. As time passed though, kingdoms and queendoms appeared; chiefs turned into kings and queens to whom the peoples transferred their attitudes towards the former chiefs. The only Freedom of Choice a person had, was the possibility of secretly escaping from one king for the sake of another at the risk of losing one’s life. Only one in thousands would ever take the risk.

Time passed and rudimentary elements of Freedom of Choice that were permitted in the economy came into conflict with the feudal structure of society that existed under the kingship. Freedom of choice demanded full freedom in the production and promotion of merchandise, freedom to accumulate wealth from one’s labour, in short, laws which would establish equality among all members of society. Then the great bourgeois revolutions began rolling across Europe and endorsing the basic human freedoms: the freedom to vote, the freedom to elect and be elected, the absolute equality of all citizens before the law and so on. The most vehement adherents of Freedom of Choice rushed to assimilate the American continent.

As a result, the opportunity to preserve one’s genes increased for all members of society. However, all nature of crisis and particularly ongoing significant inequality between various members of a society who now possessed considerable freedom, made them seek again and again for a different choice.

Time passed and then politicians and their parties began to appear on the historical stage offering very simple solutions to problems, solutions that could be easily understood by poorly educated segments of society. They would claim that the people’s problems were the fault of self-indulgent, robbing-capitalists (in the case of the communists) or hostile robbing-States, or even robbing-Jews (in the case of the Nazis). To deny the robbers the possibility of robbing, they would ask the people to permit them to limit their Freedom of Choice, just a little bit. Lacking in sufficient historical experience, the peoples would grant them their request, readily and voluntarily. In Russia in 1917, the Communists took power into their own hands without asking the people for permission and deprived the population of Freedom of Choice. For example, on the third day after coming to power, they shut down all non-communist newspapers.

Usually all new political authorities are able to achieve this for an initial period under slogans such as “Expropriate the expropriators” and “Rob what was robbed!” as was the case at one time with Stalin and Hitler and very recently, with Hugo Chavez. Any economy though, when deprived of Freedom of Choice begins to stall and soon falls apart either for objective inner reasons or under fire from the peoples who refuse to sacrifice Freedom of Choice.

And if, as has already been stated, in ancient times, human Gene Preservation was barely dependent on individual Freedom of Choice, by the end of the nineteenth century (in Europe and North America), it had become increasingly dependent on Freedom of Choice. Today, in the twenty-first century, more and more people throughout the world understand that without Freedom of Choice the people cannot be fed, which means that they cannot protect their genes. Now Gene Preservation and Freedom of Choice are inseparably linked and it is impossible to implement Gene Preservation successfully whilst negating the existence of Freedom of Choice.

In the light of the recent million-strong march in Caracas, one thing is certain: Nicholas Maduro’s days are numbered.

The main conclusion of this short article is that in the twenty-first century, in countries in which there is no Freedom of Choice, the reliable realisation of Gene Preservation becomes extremely difficult to achieve and this is why we are seeing huge streams of refugees fleeing their homelands for other countries in which Freedom of Choice is guaranteed. Moreover, the overriding majority flee taking their children with them, not for the sake of Freedom of Choice of which they have only a very vague conception, but solely for the opportunity to protect and pass on their genes.

As far as some developing countries are concerned, dictator-leaders who claim that economics comes first and politics second are simply lying! An economy can never grow in conditions of total corruption which is always the inevitable consort of life in a society deprived of freedom. Even in the case of China, where economic freedom devoid of political freedom has generated tremendous results, there is no doubt that these results will soon exhaust themselves and the world of business will demand the provision of total Freedom of Choice.